Discrimination law is technology-neutral. If a recruitment tool screens out older applicants or a pricing model charges one group more, the law asks the same questions it always has. AI makes the problem harder to see, not legally different.
United States: the vendor in the frame
In Mobley v Workday, a federal court in California has allowed age discrimination claims to proceed against the provider of AI screening software, on the theory that the vendor acted as the employers’ agent. A nationwide collective of applicants aged 40 and over was certified in 2025, and in March 2026 the court rejected Workday’s argument that the age discrimination statute does not protect job applicants. The case is continuing. New York City has required independent bias audits of automated hiring tools since 2023.
European Union
The AI Act classes AI used in recruitment, worker management, creditworthiness and life and health insurance pricing as high-risk, with obligations on data quality, testing for bias, human oversight and, for some deployers, a fundamental rights impact assessment, from December 2027. Equality directives and the GDPR’s fairness principle apply now.
United Kingdom
The Equality Act 2010 applies to AI decisions as to any others, including indirect discrimination, where a neutral rule disadvantages a protected group without justification. The employer or lender remains liable even when the tool came from a supplier.
“The vendor’s model did it” is not a defence. In the US it may soon mean two defendants instead of one.
What to do
Test AI tools for disparate outcomes before use and periodically after. Ask suppliers for their bias testing results, and put an obligation to share them in the contract.
This article is general information on the law as at November 2026. It is not legal advice and has not been updated since that date. See the terms of use.